"It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure."

What?

Maybe Hardwaterman or Jim Higgeness could come here and make this a little clearer and show us where this is located in the petition. As Hardwaterman has stated the 2nd intiatted measure is worded much differently than the first.

"It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure."

What?

I.e. The wild - being protected from those who would have them, wild animals, relegated to common domestic livestock status with all that implies - pens, high fences and target shooters...

Pot stirring to stir the pot...

Either way the people of ND - the real owners of our wildlife get to vote now. Perhaps both sides can shut their holes and let the democratic system prevail.

i don't know how many times this has to be said b4 some folks get it and understand it.... this measure isn't going to shut down the raising of these animals. just ends the sale of the kill. your problem w/ wild animals being relegated to common domestic livestock will still be there. and once again... these animals are decades and dozens of generations removed from being wild. you can not put the lid back on that can of worms. you may close your eyes, plug your ears, toss a penny in the pool and wish as hard as you want that deer, elk and bison were never domesticated. But, that wish will never come true.

Tuff Chick Said:
Not so good. I helped my friend this weekend and saw nothing. We camped at the Buffalo Gap and only 5 Elk were brought there to be hung. Ollie said this is the worst year for elk. The only ones that I saw shot were the elk trying to get back into the park after feeding all night. Hopefully since the weather is cooler that will help.
Good Luck!

To me it seems absolutely hilarious, hypocritical, etc that the park is allowed to let caged elk roam freely in and out of the park. In fact, the reason they cannot ship the elk to other places anymore is because of CWD and other disease concerns. Yet, every single year you hear of people shooting them as they go back into the park. Doesn't that seem weird?

Then of course this whole high fence thing. Nobody can convince me there won't be issue soon arising about the park hunt. This initiative (as mentioned above) opens the door for litigation. The answer I hear is "oh but Tim, there isn't any money exchanged at hand."

Hence, it won't be shut down as a high fence operation. The older I get the more I see the hypocrisy of the world. Some of guilty of but man, this is something else.

Guess there's nothing to really do but sit back and watch the show in November and maybe write some letters, do some blogging, etc to lobby against this. Should be interesting regardless.

Answer one single question if you would. Should the laws created by this "democratic system" be based of factual truth?

Does truth include the answers to any of the following?

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?

Any truthful answers to the above would be appreciated.

------------------

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?

1. In my opinion, yes. I don't think the minimal acreage operations are fair chase. I just don't. But there are other things I don't think are fair chase and currently legal. So where does that leave my opinion? I leave it at that, my opinion.

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

2. Yeah, it sucks that pay hunting exists. I'm not a fan of it out of principle but I have a hard time telling a landowner he or she cannot do what is within the law. If someone wants to pay to get into a golf course, they must do so. If someone wants to get into the North Dakota State Fair, they must. I know people will scream at the examples but I think people get the point.

So my answer is no for two reasons. First off, those type of landowners probably never let people on in the first place. From there, it most likely went to elk operations where horns were sold to the Chinese. Some were butchered. Well, that whole thing went south with the creation of Viagra. So they went into the high fence operations. Same similar fate to bison (funny how they aren't attacked). Anyway, I don't like it but I guess I cannot blame the landowner. In my opinion (and I've said it a billion times), we must attack the customer and not the business. Mock the customer that thinks he is an almighty hunter and soon there will be no more customers. But nope, we want to do it via shoving laws down people's throats. I swear people, that mentality will be the destruction of the country...after a civil war of course.

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

3. Oh I suppose you could play that card. But I'd like to have an answer back. Do domestic animals pose a much greater disease risk to wildlife? We both know the answer to that. Hence, my belief and backing of hypocrisy claims to the baiting bill that will most likely show up in a few months. P.S. I do believe the TB strains in Minnesota come from down south from domestic livestock.

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

4. Yes. They have. So does the National Park Service. Do I like it? Well, never really cared I guess with exception to disease but there are such strict rules in place that it seems rather minimal. Again, I'll reiterate hypocrisy and give clear example to how the NPS elk roam in and out of the park fence. Slippery slope when we compare the two as they are pretty darn similar. I'm guessing the local private animals are more closely watched. I wonder if the park elk wouldn't be more dangerous to the public. A crying shame I have to say this because I'd rather just shut up and cut more holes in the fence and remove any need for a pen hunt in the park. But, it is what it is.

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?

5. I don't know the answer. I know a few operations have been completely dissolved after they had issues with animals. But those operations with missing animals? Probably would have to call the state to ask. Good question though.

Timbuk-2 Said:
How about eyexer's post that the issue has been put before the voters a couple of times? That's a distortion, misrepresentation, and an out right lie. As he later admitted when he was caught.

Your getting completely owned in this discussion and that's all you honestly can come up with? LFMAO.

As of right now, I will not be voting for the measure (due to wording).

However, if anyone who claims it will open the door to shutting down other methods of hunting would like to explain exactly how, I would love to listen to it. Do you think they will only try an initiated measure if this passes? Or that they would never (or have never) think about following a states method of enacting laws? Those are extremely naive' in my opinion. Unless you are strictly talking about interpretting this law in the court system, in which case a rewrite to address that concern will most likely be attempted next time.

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

No, it is the landowner's right to post his land.By allowing someone to come in and take an animal, it may actually free up hunting on public land.

I agree with the first part of your answer, but the second part is totally incorrect and as a landowner/outdoors woman you should know better. Every acre that is currently under HFH or guide/outfitter control was at one time open to friends or family. I now compete against those hunters for access to increasingly fewer acres of open to the Average Joe land. So indirectly and directly HFH has served as an access limiting factor in ND. I can't think of a single HFH or guiding operation that allows fair chasers access to any of their land. Can you?

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

Is this question limited to the 10 hunt facilities or all 79 facilities?As far as I know there has never been a case of CWD in a game farm in ND.

Neither, it's a general question.

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

Again, does this just apply to the 10 hunt facilities or all 79 facilities.

Again, neither. It's a generic question that gets at the willingness and ability of the general HFH enterprise to clean up after itself. In this particular question though, feel free to limit your research to just ND operations. I believe elk, deer, and russian boars have all been escapees at one point in ND.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

sportsman | Said:
As of right now, I will not be voting for the measure (due to wording).

However, if anyone who claims it will open the door to shutting down other methods of hunting would like to explain exactly how, I would love to listen to it. Do you think they will only try an initiated measure if this passes? Or that they would never (or have never) think about following a states method of enacting laws? Those are extremely naive' in my opinion. Unless you are strictly talking about interpretting this law in the court system, in which case a rewrite to address that concern will most likely be attempted next time.

This should answer your question but I am sure it wont.

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

In regard to your thoughts on #4, I don't believe anywhere in the law does the National Park Service lay claim to animals. Rather they control activities and that is why you can smoke an elk that walks 2 inches outside of the fence. It's not the NPS' animal.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

How many cattle get out is this state every day? Who pays when a truck overturns with cattle or hogs in it on the interstate and local officals help contain them? Like most farmers or anybody for that matter, I am sure they have insurance to cover these issues when their animals damage other property or cause an issue.

This bill really scares me, the general public is not as wise as they used to be and less understand what this could do to all hunting.

Goosefishmen Said:
How many cattle get out is this state every day? Who pays when a truck overturns with cattle or hogs in it on the interstate and local officals help contain them? Like most farmers or anybody for that matter, I am sure they have insurance to cover these issues when their animals damage other property or cause an issue.

This bill really scares me, the general public is not as wise as they used to be and less understand what this could do to all hunting.

Y'all call me a paranoid gun-nut now, but we all know who you're going to be running to for help when the zombies show up.

Goosefishmen Said:
How many cattle get out is this state every day? Who pays when a truck overturns with cattle or hogs in it on the interstate and local officals help contain them? Like most farmers or anybody for that matter, I am sure they have insurance to cover these issues when their animals damage other property or cause an issue.

This bill really scares me, the general public is not as wise as they used to be and less understand what this could do to all hunting.

pber Said:
Allen, My point is, do we want Fair Chase defined in federal law? At the rate this is going, this is exactly what is going to happen and then Fair Chase can be used to define away hunting.

Personally, I think that is a bit of a stretch because the hunting public who is against HFH will not find themselves on the side of anything that restricts fair chase. Sure, HSUS clowns will always have their own members to continue to work against all hunting, but they lose the fair chase crowd when it comes to that.

I actually do know an operator that allows hunting on his land that is not fenced. A lot of operators do not totally fence all their land.

As someone who is likely in more knowledge of all 10 HFH operations and maybe even more outfitter run pay-for-hunt operations, I am not totally surprised by the first sentence and of course, agree that not all fence in 100% if their property.

So are you saying that by eliminating the high fence hunt facilities, all some 10 of them, there will be more acres for others to hunt?

To a certain extent, yes. It may not be very many acres that we are speaking of, but you must admit that at one point in time someone else hunted those acres. Even if it were only blood relatives. And of course, on the track we are going it is reasonable to foresee that the number of acres is only likely to increase. Regrettably, in this sense I lump HFH operations with pay-for-hunt operations. Neither of which do I find very tasteful.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?

Any truthful answers to the above would be appreciated.

First
The "average joe" here in ND has almost unlimited opportunities if they CHOOSE to hunt abiding by "fair chase" rules. You would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. NO ONE is trying to take that CHOICE away from them, yet. . I can go to any area in this state and hunt any game animal without having to pay a dime. I highly doubt that I am that much more special than any other "average joe" here in ND so the answer to your question IMO that can only BE answered by opinion rather than truthful fact is no one is taking the choice of "fair chase hunting" away from any "average joe" so they have not "turned their backs " on anyone. Now from a factual perspective, the fact is "fair chase"is by your own admission only a set of rules developed by hunting orgs to govern animals accepted into their record keeping system. While the ability of the owners of these animals to offer these privately owned animals in "hunting" situations is a part of state law.

Second
It is hard to seriously claim these HFH operations have taken any significant amount of land away from anyone, particularily when a major arguement of the FC group is the SMALL acrages these animals are held in. It is also a FACT that these are privately owned lands that are not "open" to the public unless the owner chooses to allow it by not posting them. Are you trying to claim a land owner should not have the right to control access to the lands they own if it is for a legal purpose you disagree with????? As to a follow up question you posed, I do know an operation that has other land that is not posted and open to public hunting for the "average joe"

Third
I do not know the answer to this, but I'm sure the State Board of Animal Health could answer this for you.

Fourth
From a post by someone else on this thread, I believe so, if they posted factual information.

Fifth
I do not know the answer to this, but again, I would guess the SBoAH could answer this for you.

Now Allen if you would answer the two questions I have posed.
Do you believe the creation of state law should be based on factual truth?
Do you believe the sponsors of any measure should be held to a standard of truth and fact?

While you are at it please answer if telling someone these animals in the HF operations that are clearly defined as privately owned domestic animals and farmed elk in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC are "wild game" protected for the public use under article 11 Sec. 27 is the truth as sponsor Gary Masching admits to telling people while gathering signatures in a Dakota Country article?

Allen Said Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

No, it is the landowner's right to post his land.By allowing someone to come in and take an animal, it may actually free up hunting on public land.

I agree with the first part of your answer, but the second part is totally incorrect and as a landowner/outdoors woman you should know better. Every acre that is currently under HFH or guide/outfitter control was at one time open to friends or family. I now compete against those hunters for access to increasingly fewer acres of open to the Average Joe land. So indirectly and directly HFH has served as an access limiting factor in ND. I can't think of a single HFH or guiding operation that allows fair chasers access to any of their land. Can you?

How can you factually claim no "friends and family" "average joes" are not allowed to hunt on any of these HF or guiding operations????? Simply because you "can't think of a single" one does not make it a factually true blanket statement. I have personally hunted on land that is owned by friends that have a HF operation. Never paid a dime. Please do not try linking guiding and the leasing of land to the discussion regarding the measure to ban HF.

Personally, I think that is a bit of a stretch because the hunting public who is against HFH will not find themselves on the side of anything that restricts fair chase. Sure, HSUS clowns will always have their own members to continue to work against all hunting, but they lose the fair chase crowd when it comes to that.

BS!!!!
So how do explain the banning of hunting predators with dogs, the banning of baiting, the banning of the use of trail cameras, ect............ by hunters themselves????

How many conversations have taken place on this site about any number of accepted fair chase activities and wether they are ethical or should be banned or allowed? How far is too far, what caliber is too light, running shots, bow let off ect............

There will ALWAYS be a small group of the "hunting public" that believe THEIR ethics are superior and should be pushed onto everyone. For now they are called North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, next year perhaps it will be North Dakota Hunters to Ban Baiting.